Exam 7: Strict Liability and Product Liability

A manufacturer or seller has a duty to warn about a risk that is obvious or commonly known.

Under the doctrine of strict liability, persons are liable only for the results of their intentional acts or their failure to exercise due care.

A seller who introduces into commerce an unreasonably dangerous product may be subject to a tort action for strict liability.

Holding defendants strictly liable for manufacturing defects encourages greater investment in product safety.

Only big businesses face potential liability for the products they sell.

The manufacturer of a product may incur liability when a defect causes injury to a user but not when the defect causes property damage to a bystander.

EZ Co-op Inc. sells Fill-Up cattle feed to ranchers. Gina buys and feeds Fill-Up to her herd. The feed is poisoned. Gina sues EZ for product liability based on negligence. To win, Gina must show

Rev Motor Company buys plugs and points from Sparkplugs Inc. and puts them in Rev vehicles without changing their composition. If the parts are defective, strictly liable for any damage caused by the defects may be

DIY-Haul, Inc., makes, sells, and leases hauling equipment for consumer use. Ed files a product liability suit against DIY-Haul, alleging a design defect. In deciding whether to hold the maker liable, the court may consider

Baby Things Inc. makes and sells a crib to Cara. Baby Things fails to exercise "due care" to make the crib safe, and Cara's child Dua is injured as a result. Baby Things is most likely liable for

Airsoft, Inc. makes toys. Airsoft intentionally mislabels its packaged products to conceal a defect. Trusting and relying on the mislabeling, Bing buys an Airsoft product and suffers an injury. Airsoft is most likely liable for

The elements of an action in strict product liability include that a plaintiff must have incurred harm by the use or consumption of a product.